Three more opinions this week, as The Nine continue to chip away at OT20’s remaining backlog. Most notably, in Van Buren v. United States (No. 19-783), an interesting mix (no scare-quotes this time, as it actually is a unique line-up) led by Justice Barrett concluded that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) does not apply to all individuals who misuse authorized access to
Read More Van Buren v. United States (No. 19-783), United States v. Cooley (No. 19-1414), Garland v. Ming Dai (No. 19-1155)
United States v. Palomar-Santiago (No. 20-437), Guam v. United States (No. 20-382), San Antonio v. Hotels.com (No. 20-334)
Three new decisions this week, each unanimous. First, in United States v. Palomar-Santiago (No. 20-437), the Court held that defendants charged with unlawfully reentering the United States following an order of removal can collaterally attack the validity of the prior removal order only when three statutory prerequisites are met, rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s rule that these requirements could be excused in certain cases. Second
Read More United States v. Palomar-Santiago (No. 20-437), Guam v. United States (No. 20-382), San Antonio v. Hotels.com (No. 20-334)Jones v. Mississippi (No. 18-1259), AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC (No. 19-508), Carr v. Saul (No. 19-1442)
Last Thursday, the Court issued three decisions in argued cases. In Jones v. Mississippi (No. 18-1259), a heavily divided Court pared back its prior decision in Miller v. Alabama (2012), holding that a court could sentence a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole even without specifically finding that the defendant was “permanently incorrigible.” In AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC (No.
Read More Jones v. Mississippi (No. 18-1259), AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC (No. 19-508), Carr v. Saul (No. 19-1442)Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (No.18-956)
Just one decision to report in this Update, but it’s a biggie, at least for IP nerds and coders. In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (No. 18-956), the Court held that Google’s copying of certain portions of a computer program owned by Oracle, called Java, was fair use under the copyright laws. In doing so, Justice Breyer, writing for a 6-2 majority, also
Read More Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (No.18-956)Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (No. 19-368)
The Court released two significant opinions yesterday, addressing personal jurisdiction in product-liability actions and the concept of “failed seizures” under the Fourth Amendment.
Among civil litigators, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (No. 19-368), isn’t just one of the most anticipated cases of OT20; it’s one of the most anticipated cases of OT19, when it was originally slated for argument, before
Read More Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (No. 19-368)Brownback v. King (No. 19-546)
The Court returned to action last week, issuing a unanimous decision in one case: Brownback v. King (No. 19-546). It concerns the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a statute that waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. One of its provisions, known as the “judgment bar,” prevents a plaintiff from suing
Read More Brownback v. King (No. 19-546)